ORDER
G.C. Gupta, J.M.
This appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 1993-94 is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The only issue in this appeal is regarding addition of Rs. 7,41,332 made under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The learned departmental Representative argued that the addition was made on the basis of loose paper No. 20 seized during the search operations conducted at the assessee's premises on 5-1-1995. She argued that on the loose paper the amount of Rs. 7,41,332 is mentioned as paid on 24-11-1992 and the assessee could not explain the nature and source of the expenditure. She explained that the statement of the assessee could not be recorded on this issue due to his death on 18-12-1996. She has relied on decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. P.R. Metrani (HUF) (2001) 169 CTR (Kar) 149 (2001) 251 ITR 241 .
3. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that no addition on the basis of noting on loose paper can be made since there is no material to relate the same to any expenditure made by the assessee. He argued that no question regarding the nature and source of the alleged noting was made to the deceased assessee, who was alive for about 11 months after the search operations were conducted.
He argued that on 25-6-1995, the wife of the assessee died and thereafter the assessee expired in December, 1995. He argued that for the first time on 18-3-1996, the legal heir was questioned regarding the alleged noting and on 26-3-1995, the assessment order was passed. He argued that a disclosure of Rs. 1.03 crores: was made by the assessee and there is no reason to suggest that this noting is not covered by the disclosure made by the assessee. He argued that in order under section 132(5), no addition on the basis ol this paper was made by the revenue. He argued that no addition on the basis of some, noting on the loose paper cdn be made without relating the same to some explained expenditure made by the assessee. He relied on a series of decisions reported as Smt. Panna Detd Chowdhary v. CIT : [1994]208ITR849(Bom) , CIT v. Mrugesh Jay Kishna : [2000]245ITR638(Guj) , S.F. Wadia v. Income Tax Officer , Mrs. Malini Ramnath Rele v. Income Tax Officer (1994) 48 TTJ (Bom) 295: (1994) 49 17D 43 (Bom), S.P. Goyal v. Dy. CIT (2002) 77 7TJ (Bom) : (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Bom), D.A. Patel v. Dy. CIT (2001) 70 TTJ (Bom) 969: (2000) 72 iTD 340 (Bom).
4. The learned departmental Representative in her rejoinder. argued that the loose paper No. 20 is not the dumb document and the onus is on the assessee to explain. She argued that the son of the deceased assessee was handling all the affairs of the assessee and therefore he should be well aware of the nature and source of the noting on the loose paper.
5. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. We find that the noting on the loose paper No. 20 is as under
'paid Rs. 7,41,332 as on 24-11-1992.'
In our considered view there cannot be any addition made in the hands of the assessee by invoking section 69C of the Act, on the mere noting on the loose sheet reproduced above. In order to make any addition under section 69C of the Act for unexplained expenditure, some material has to be brought on record to suggest some unexplained expenditure was incurred by the assessee and the nature thereof and that it relates to the assessee. In this case the search operations were conducted on 5-1-1995 and the papers were seized and the assessee was never questioned regarding the nature and source thereof and the assessee expired on 18-12-1995. The assessee was a real estate broker who was getting income on various transactions. In order under section 132(5) of the Act, no addition on this account was made. The assessee has made a disclosure of Rs. 1.03 crores including surrender made on account of expenditure incurred in renovation, furniture and fixtures at the residence and also on account of charity given and loans and advances given in cash to various persons whose particulars are not mentioned . In our considered view the revenue seems to be satisfied with the disclosure of Rs. 1.03 crores made by the assessee at the time of search and due to this reason no question regarding the alleged noting was made to the assessee by the revenue. Merely because the son of the assessee may be handling the affairs of the assessee, is no ground to make the addition for his failure to explain the nature and source of the alleged noting. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee also supports the case of the assessee. The assessee was never confronted with the documents although he was alive for about eleven months from the date of search and seizure. The deceased assessee was a real estate broker and the alleged noting on the seized document can be interpreted differently. There is no material on record that the assessee has spent the amount on furnishings somewhere. In these facts we hold that the onus in such type of case on the revenue to show that plima facie the expenditure was made by the assessee on the basis of some material on record, is not discharged by the revenue. In this view of the matter we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the IT(A) in holding that the addition cannot be upheld in this case for want of any material or evidence on record and the requirements of section 69C are not fulfilled by the revenue. Accordingly, the ground of appeal of the revenue being without any merit is dismissed.
6. In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.